New Symbol to Identify the Church

[JAHS]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

My big question is... what's this site to do? First, Mormon is out, but it's part of this site. Now, the prime symbol is no longer Moroni, yet that's on this site...  

The Church has been able to do it but there are a lot of well established Church related websites out there that have the names LDS or Mormon in them.  Very hard to change their name to something that can be recognized by Church members. I think most are not even trying to make any changes.

[Teancum]

On 4/5/2020 at 11:35 AM, JAHS said:

Of course it's not Jesus. Still it is a depiction of Jesus that the entire world can identify with. 

This Jesus looks like Thor, the god of thunder. Plus he is immodest. His nipple is showing.

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This Jesus looks like Thor, the god of thunder. Plus he is immodest. His nipple is showing.

Yeah but it does show the scar in his side, a further sign of Him having a resurrected body. 

[teddyaware]

23 hours ago, darkrats said:

There are many Churches that claim exclusive authority, but most are considered (like the Mormons) not to be Christian. Examples would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Church of God (many varieties) and so on. When we focus to much on the LDS Church we tend to believe that our doctrines and practices are unique and special, but they are not. Think eternal marriage (Swedenborgians), becoming Gods (any offshoot of the once well known World Wide Church of God), having Apostles (Apostolic Churches). Some churches even do the LDS Church one better by speaking in tongues (Pentecostal Churches) which isn't done by the LDS Church. Other churches practice healing, playing with serpents (snakes). Even the Eastern Christian churches believe in ascending to some form of Godhood. The LDS Church is not the final bastion of exclusive authority. There are also many occult groups that operate as churches which have additional scriptures over and above the Bible. Joseph Smith may have had a true vision, but he wasn't experiencing anything completely different. I don't recall the name of the church, but there was even a group that constructed a temple around the same time as JS lived. As for end time Prophets, think the Bahai's who had their own latter-day prophet.

The knowledgeable adherents of each of the Christian sects you list would not hesitate to assert that the modern founders of each of their particular religions were not apostles and prophets in the New Testament sense of those words. So right away your claim of there being any substantive similarities between these sects and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is fatally undermined. If there are indeed any similarities at all, they are, at very most, totally superficial. And as far as the Baha’is are concerned, they deny the the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ. In addition, there is no unbroken line of prophetic succession and authority. So the Baha’is are no different than any other religion with a dead founding prophet but no living prophet endowed with the original prophet’s mantle of authority. So again, any seeming similarities turn out to be purely superficial.

Edited April 9, 2020 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I feel bad for Moroni, he obviously wasn't meeting the boss's expectaions.  Imagine how you would feel if the boss came in and took over one of your most important responsibilities for himself.   Ouch.

Why are you perpetuating the falsehood that Moroni was the Church’s logo? You and hft need to get off this kick. 

[Bob Crockett]

"So was the Mormon's [sic] appropriation of the Christus intended to be an affirmation of whiteness [of deity]?  It's possible . . . ."  Noel Carmack, Review:  Thorvadlsen's White-Marbled Christus Reconsidered, Journal of Mormon History (Fall 2013), 239, 256 (he argues that notwithstanding the possibility, there is no contemporaneous evidence to suggest it).  Citing Edward Blum and Paul Harvey, The Color of Christ:  The Son of God and the Saga of Race, "[[T]he Church's] stores and Web sites sitll feature images and art work of a blue-eyed, blond, white Jesus, and most Mormons refuse to recognized any racial meaning or importance in images like the Christus."  (Citing the on-line edition at the Chronicle of Higher Education.)  Blum and Harvey retrace the Church's long history of racism, or so they claim.  "From reading Blum and Harvey's explanation, this indictment of the Mormon use of a white Jesus in its imagery seems to be one which the Church cannot avoid."  (Carmack, p. 248.)   Carmack then seeks to explain it.

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

"So was the Mormon's [sic] appropriation of the Christus intended to be an affirmation of whiteness [of deity]?  It's possible . . . ."  Noel Carmack, Review:  Thorvadlsen's White-Marbled Christus Reconsidered, Journal of Mormon History (Fall 2013), 239, 256 (he argues that notwithstanding the possibility, there is no contemporaneous evidence to suggest it).  Citing Edward Blum and Paul Harvey, The Color of Christ:  The Son of God and the Saga of Race, "[[T]he Church's] stores and Web sites sitll feature images and art work of a blue-eyed, blond, white Jesus, and most Mormons refuse to recognized any racial meaning or importance in images like the Christus."  (Citing the on-line edition at the Chronicle of Higher Education.)  Blum and Harvey retrace the Church's long history of racism, or so they claim.  "From reading Blum and Harvey's explanation, this indictment of the Mormon use of a white Jesus in its imagery seems to be one which the Church cannot avoid."  (Carmack, p. 248.)   Carmack then seeks to explain it.

I confess to only having a vague understanding of what you are saying, but I will assert this:

All cultures have portrayed historical figures such as the Christ and Apostles etc. in their cultural milieu.  IE. they tend to look like the artist portraying them.   Lots of pictures in South American churches depicting Christ and the apostles looking like natives of the region and in costume to boot.  What's the big deal?  Most Mormons in the US are/were white when this statue was adopted as the unofficial symbol of the Church.  All Danes are white, and of course the sculptor depicted the Christ as he "saw" Him.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you perpetuating the falsehood that Moroni was the Church’s logo? You and hft need to get off this kick. 

You are confusing logo with logotype.  A logo is any symbol used to identify a company.  A logotype is a specific typeface that spells out the name of the company.  Technically, Moroni image is a registered trademark logo of the Church and is used to represent the Church.  While it has never been attached directly to the name of the Church, it has been used to identify the Church.  For example, Moroni has been used on Book of Mormons to identify the book as being related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  A company may have multiple logos that are trademarked and used to represent a company.  The CTR ring is a Church logo.  The Relief Society seal is a Church logo. The Beehive is a Church logo.  And yes, the Angel Moroni is a Church logo.

 

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

For a baptism to be valid for Catholicism, it has to have (like every sacrament/ordinance): proper intent, proper form, proper matter. For baptism, this means water (matter), form (in the name of the Trinity), and intent (remission of original sin and initiation into Christianity). Thus, protestant baptisms have always been valid. There is no priesthood necessary for a valid baptism.

Do you know if they accept Mormon baptisms then?  They would seem to fit for the most part, with some nuances around trinity and original sin, but protestant sects also have differences in areas as well when it comes to theological perspectives on various subjects.  

[InCognitus]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are confusing logo with logotype.  A logo is any symbol used to identify a company.  A logotype is a specific typeface that spells out the name of the company.  Technically, Moroni image is a registered trademark logo of the Church and is used to represent the Church.  While it has never been attached directly to the name of the Church, it has been used to identify the Church.  For example, Moroni has been used on Book of Mormons to identify the book as being related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  A company may have multiple logos that are trademarked and used to represent a company.  The CTR ring is a Church logo.  The Relief Society seal is a Church logo. The Beehive is a Church logo.  And yes, the Angel Moroni is a Church logo.

 

Logo or not, the Moroni symbol as a representation for the church is not going away, despite some jokes to the contrary (and they were just jokes).  Revelation 14:6 is still scripture, and Moroni is a perfectly good way to symbolize that verse and the restoration of the gospel.  But Moroni isn't THE church logo, the one that is used for the name of the church.  And I think that was what Scott was really trying to say.

[Stargazer]

On 4/8/2020 at 11:08 PM, Navidad said:

As a non-member and in the whatever it is worth department I was concerned when I read the proclamation. I agree with tacenda. It seems to me that the past proclamations of the church have had a unifying purpose. This one seems to be focused on highlighting the non-mainstream or non-orthodox positions of the church. I think this will be a negative to missionary work when it is read by non-LDS Christians. Perhaps differentiation was the intent, but that does not seem to be the intent of the church as late. Armand Mauss has noted in his writings, the lessening of the differentiation because of comfort of the church as being a stable and mainstream organization. As a non-LDS supporter of the church I was concerned when I read it.

I think that is the case. 

Given the unique claim of divinity that the Church has, do you really think that it should be saying "We're just like you!" ?  If so, what is the point of the church?  If the Father and the Son visited Joseph Smith and told him that all those other churches do not have authority from them -- that these other churches have gone the wrong way -- and that they said that Joseph is the chosen instrument to bring that authority back to the earth, it would be mind-boggling for the church to NOT emphasize this.  Of course the church should treat the other Christian churches with respect. Of course it should cooperate with them in matters where there are questions of mutual concern. Of course, we as church members need to genuinely love all men, including our fellow Christians. But it must be realized that the church is fundamentally different from the other churches in ways that matter.  Whether the leaders of the other churches believe it or not, and in fact whether it is true or not. In order to maintain consistency and justification the CoJCoLDS has to actively maintain its claim. Politely, of course.

I tend to believe that this will not be a genuine negative when it comes to missionary work. Because, again, why be a "Mormon" if it's just another church among many?  This proclamation may possibly put some people off -- but if the church isn't unique, then one might as well be a Baptist, a Catholic, a Methodist, a Muslim or a Buddhist.  The divine imprimatur of the First Vision makes for a distinctiveness that demands investigation, for those who are genuinely interested in and desirous of finding a church that is not man-made. And that is why the church is emphasizing it.

[Stargazer]

On 4/8/2020 at 11:31 PM, Bob Crockett said:

Can't trademark the Christus.  Already in the public domain.

No, but one can trademark something containing the Christus along with other elements. I am not an intellectual property lawyer, but you can find all kinds of public domain things that are incorporated into trademarks. Such as the old Procter and Gamble trademark logo:

As you can see, there are stars in there. Stars are public domain. It is the symbol as a whole that is trademarked, not necessarily the various elements of the trademark. 

[MiserereNobis]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you know if they accept Mormon baptisms then?  They would seem to fit for the most part, with some nuances around trinity and original sin, but protestant sects also have differences in areas as well when it comes to theological perspectives on various subjects.  

Actually, no, after researching the question the Vatican determined that LDS baptisms are not valid because of form and intent. While the words are the same (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), the meaning behind the words is too different to be valid (not just non-Trinitarian, but physical bodies, etc). Also, the lack of intent to remove original sin makes the baptism invalid.

Click here for the official document from the Vatican.

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, no, after researching the question the Vatican determined that LDS baptisms are not valid because of form and intent. While the words are the same (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), the meaning behind the words is too different to be valid (not just non-Trinitarian, but physical bodies, etc). Also, the lack of intent to remove original sin makes the baptism invalid.

Click here for the official document from the Vatican.

I guess that's only fair since the LDS Church does not accept baptisms from any other Christian faith. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

You are confusing logo with logotype.  A logo is any symbol used to identify a company.  A logotype is a specific typeface that spells out the name of the company.  Technically, Moroni image is a registered trademark logo of the Church and is used to represent the Church.  While it has never been attached directly to the name of the Church, it has been used to identify the Church.  For example, Moroni has been used on Book of Mormons to identify the book as being related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  A company may have multiple logos that are trademarked and used to represent a company.  The CTR ring is a Church logo.  The Relief Society seal is a Church logo. The Beehive is a Church logo.  And yes, the Angel Moroni is a Church logo.

 

No. I understand the respective meaning. And I’m not confusing anything. Moroni is not being deleted or de-emphasized as a symbol or trademark or representation or identification or whatever it is you want to call it. That is silliness that certain persons have seized upon and are trying to popularize, likely (considering some of the sources) because they don’t like an image of the Savior being used as a visual identifier for His Church. The Moroni icon has never been used in the way the new symbol unveiled by President Nelson is being used now. 
 

And by the way “logo” is a shortened form of the word “logotype.” 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I guess that's only fair since the LDS Church does not accept baptisms from any other Christian faith. 

Correction. The Church of Jesus Christ does not accept baptisms from any other Christian faith. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, no, after researching the question the Vatican determined that LDS baptisms are not valid because of form and intent. While the words are the same (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), the meaning behind the words is too different to be valid (not just non-Trinitarian, but physical bodies, etc). Also, the lack of intent to remove original sin makes the baptism invalid.

Click here for the official document from the Vatican.

I recall there was a lot of uproar when that determination came forth from the Vatican, but in hindsight, it only makes sense. 

[JAHS]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Correction. The Church of Jesus Christ does not accept baptisms from any other Christian faith. 

 I only said LDS Church because he referred to LDS baptisms.

[MiserereNobis]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I recall there was a lot of uproar when that determination came forth from the Vatican, but in hindsight, it only makes sense. 

Thanks for saying that. I've never been bothered that your church doesn't accept my baptism because of your theological views on priesthood and baptism.

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 I only said LDS Church because he referred to LDS baptisms.

Oh, passing the buck to me, eh?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, no, after researching the question the Vatican determined that LDS baptisms are not valid because of form and intent. While the words are the same (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), the meaning behind the words is too different to be valid (not just non-Trinitarian, but physical bodies, etc). Also, the lack of intent to remove original sin makes the baptism invalid.

Click here for the official document from the Vatican.

In your own words, in one or two succinct sentences, what exactly is the Catholic doctrine of original sin?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thanks for saying that. I've never been bothered that your church doesn't accept my baptism because of your theological views on priesthood and baptism.

Yeah, I've always been embarrassed by Mormons, who don't accept Catholic baptisms as valid, being upset that Catholics don't accept our baptisms as valid. Complete lack of self-awareness, right there.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No. I understand the respective meaning. And I’m not confusing anything. Moroni is not being de-emphasized as a symbol or trademark or representation or identification or whatever it is you want to call it. That is silliness that certain persons have seized upon and are trying to popularize, likely (considering some of the sources) because they don’t like an image of the Savior being used as a visual identifier for His Church. The Moroni icon has never been used in the way the new symbol unveiled by President Nelson is being used now. 

My comment was addressing this asserting by you, which is not true.

Quote

Why are you perpetuating the falsehood that Moroni was the Church’s logo? You and hft need to get off this kick. 

Moroni is a Church logo.

Quote

And by the way “logo” is a shortened form of the word “logotype.” 

 

Not quite.  Logo is not just an abbreviation for logotype.  There is a subtle difference between the two.  A logotype is a logo made up of words and or letters.  A logo is a more general term .  It can be a symbol and/or letters or words. A logotype can not be a symbol.  For example IBM is both a logo and a logotype.  Starbucks symbol is a logo, but not a logotype. Coca-Cola is a logotype and a logo.  The Pepsi circle is a logo, but not a logotype.

Edited April 10, 2020 by california boy

[california boy]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Logo or not, the Moroni symbol as a representation for the church is not going away, despite some jokes to the contrary (and they were just jokes).  Revelation 14:6 is still scripture, and Moroni is a perfectly good way to symbolize that verse and the restoration of the gospel.  But Moroni isn't THE church logo, the one that is used for the name of the church.  And I think that was what Scott was really trying to say.

I agree.  The person was just making a joke.  The Church has said nothing about discontinuing the Angle Moroni logo.

[Garden Girl]

While I appreciate the Christus, I always loved the image of Moroni and his trumpeting the good news of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ... it was unique to LDS and recognizable as such...

GG